npts2020

Well, the control system on shipboard electric generators I described is how the electric company "knows" whether or not to step up or reduce output, it is mostly automatic. The measurement part is after the electricity is produced. As stated a hydro plant would likely have a similar mechanism. I am not an expert on batteries and cant really comment with authority about them or their control systems. If that didnt at least partially answer your question I apologize and will defer to someone who understands what you are asking.

Actually, weight may not be a problem in the future. I read about (SciAm I think but couldnt find it) a process where the silicon is laid down in atoms thick layers on a substrate with the result being more like sheets of aluminum foil. Whether the efficiency makes it practical or economical I would bet against at this point.

The French have had a tungsten furnace heated by solar power for many years now, so being hot enough is not a problem. How efficiently it does that is another matter with which I am not familiar. Using fossil fuels is totally unnecessary but it is a cheap (when carbon generation is not taken into account) and convenient way of getting energy.

Thanks swansont and Klaynos, hopefully, I am beginning to understand the difference between propagation and photon speeds. Propogation and refraction has to do with absorption and re-emittance of photons, the delay causing the seeming change of the speed of light, got it. I still have a problem with every photon in the universe traveling at the same speed, though......

If humans do nothing, it will absolutely happen someday. In the next 25 years is not likely. Recording the orbits of any object in the solar system large enough to cause such a calamity has been a predilection of astronomers for some years now, long enough for them to say with fair certainty it will not happen that soon.

I fail to see how people say there are two American political parties in anything other than name. The core of both parties solidly represent business interests over individual and societal interest. With this view it should be no mystery that they dont want the same things the rest of us want. American politics is a case study on how to get people to vote against their own self interest. Combine lack of electoral options with a poorly educated public and you have our present situation. Anyone who doesnt toe the party line (i.e. Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, et.al.) is marginalized and attacked as being on the "fringe" regardless of how much sense they might make.

I cant tell you what the consequences of switching to DC would be but I can describe in as much detail as you like how a ship generates and maintains AC electricity at 60hz, I assume commercial plants have a similar mechanism. Attached to the turbine shaft (usually not directly but through gears) is a flywheel with weights that tend to fly apart when load decreases this causes a valve that controls oil flow to the governor (which controls the throttle) to open and drain faster, causing the throttles to close, thus maintaining speed of the turbine and generator. It is the opposite when load increases. The only difference between the one I am familiar with and one for hydro, would be controlling water instead of steam flow. I was once considered to be an expert on this sort of control system by the navy but it has been a long time. Hopefully, this helps.

I once had a fairly senior engineering petty officer try to tell me that he could actually hear the generator speeding up and slowing down even after I explained all of this to him and told him what he heard was the throttle opening and closing to maintain speed. Fortunately, I was training the new guys and not him.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the concept of refraction as relates to quantum theory but in the dictionary (wikipedia and websters) it is defined as the bending of a wave through a medium by changing the speed of the wave while traversing the medium. Are those definitions wrong? Refraction if related to speed would only need to change speed of light an infitessimal amount to cause visible effect. If it is because the photons are absorbed then re-emitted how do we know that?

Because an outright ban would be impossible at this point. So opponents of smoking chip away until few enough smoke that making it illegal won't be politically disasterous.

IMHO the U.S. federal government is the biggest cash cow in the history of the planet and this is just another attempt by those that control that cash to see just how much milk they can get out of that cow before it runs dry. The biggest problem is there is no second party to represent the majority interest, both republicans and democrats are strong business proponents, so if you are not a businessman......... The real question is whether individuals in congress can be made to feel enough pressure to keep the treasury from losing every dollar it puts up.

I thought recent experiments had slowed the speed of light down as slow as around 35 mph? Does that mean "c" changes? Does that mean the light that was slowed is/was no longer photons (changed somehow) until exiting to be detected? It just seems less likely to me that every photon in the universe travels at exactly the same speed than to believe that mechanisms like gravity or virtual particles might have some effect on that speed.

I fail to see upon what you base the "belief" that the nuclear scenario you suggest is possible under any circumstance. I can also believe that a golden dragon will appear if I think about it hard enough but that does not make it a possibility worth considering for others. Now if I suggest a plausible mechanism for my dragon to appear (and can explain why it has never happened in the past) it then begins to become science. If you wish to say that one of the most studied areas of science is wrong, you have to have a better explanation than the current one or at least show very good proof that the thousnds of other people who devoted their life to this study, somehow were mistaken. IMO the real problem with your thinking is that you are a linear being (i.e. live your life in a unidirectional manner with respect to time.....born and die) and cannot concieve of a universe that may not be.

Why is the "big bang" untestable? One does not need to recreate the earth to test the forces that act in its development. In fact I thought that was what the Large Hadron Collider was all about. The test for the "big bang" is to look to see if the universe is behaving today in the manner the theory predicts it should.

IMHO if you are not already out of the American stock market it is already too late if the money invested short term. Mostly what you ask is dependent on the time frame of the investment. Eventually the American market will come back, its just a matter of how long it will take and how big of a hit you can take in the meantime. Careful investment will still yield returns over the long term but I look for pretty rocky going for at least a few months after how this is going to get sorted out is decided. Keep your eyes on the proposed "bailout" if it makes sense to you things are probably ok but if it is so complicated as to be incomprehensible, watch out, the "cure" might be worse than the disease. The initial proposal seemed like a sure way for taxpayers to be out of a ton of money with no accountability, doing nothing would be better for most of us. Dont know if this helps you any, but thought i would try. My own opinion is that the economy will come back if steps are taken revive it with sustainable manufacturing and business practices but it may take a couple of years.

I feel like im coming out of the closet in this group, admitting to being a vegetarian, but yes, for almost 30 years now. For many of those years I ate a strict vegan diet but as of the last decade or so I have "lapsed" to eating fish and seafood once or twice a month and dairy several times a week (this also increases exponentially the number of places you can go to "eat out"). I have been too sick to work for a total of three days since about 1980 (vs more than that almost every year growing up). In my youth (17-24) I tried most available drugs and drank heavily until about 22. Since that time, smoking has been almost my sole vice in that vein, I puff a cigar or two a month and like to unwind with a puff of herbals. I have done no antibiotics in at least 30 years and resist taking even aspirin and ibuprofin, Odin be praised, I have no conditions requiring continuous medication. I love pizza, sandwiches, pilafs, and stirfries, not necessarily in that order but definitely pizza first. I try to drink around 3 liters of liquids every day, usually half water, half juice. My main food vices are too many sweets and fried foods. I try to get at least one round of disc golf in every day (which is about 45min-1hr of a good walk, ruined, according to some). The one thing that most people I meet in person remember about me is my dog, Voodoo, a world class soccer player, unfortunately I dont have a video of her on line yet. Am I the only vegetarian here?

helium breathing Yeti living down there, who speak in squeaky voices

At last the positive proof of bigfoot;)

I understand how changing the isotope of an element may shorten the half-life but how many elements is that true of? If you have a massive amount of a relatively pure element it might work but refining will be no small task, eg. how hard it is to refine reactor fuels. Seems to me like the details are intentionally few to make it easier to get funding. Almost anyone who can claim to neutralize radioative waste will get money for research right now if they can make their idea for it seem even plausible. This idea might sound good but I will believe it when I see it. Seems just as likely to me that you could neutralize the waste by bombarding it with protons, electrons, or some kind of quark.

I have been interested in the mechanism of radioactive elements' decaying for a long time now and have never seen a good explanation for the cause. My question about bombarding something like that with neutrons, is why are the neutrons in a reactor insufficient to do the same thing (most things coming out of any reactor are more radioactive not less)? Sounds like somebodies high-tech scam to get money from the gov to me.

The exchange particles are constantly being emitted to and absorbed by all the other particles round about.

What I seem to be unable to visualize is a) are particles being emitted equally in infinite directions or b) are particles only emitted in the direction of another emittor of the same particles, or c) is the question irrelevant (kinda like what is outside of the universe?). Scenario "a" seems untenable on the surface but it seems to me that we would find instances when forces did not act predictably the same in all directions, unless "b" were true. If "b" is true, why?

Aside from the problems of scale, cost, and safety, which may or may not be overcome in time, it seems like the real question is how much thickness of insulation would be required to maintain a supercooled fluid. Steam at 1000F will have a foot or more of insulation around the pipes, requiring at least 2 feet of space just for the insulation. However, the temperature differential between superconductor operation and ambient earth temperature is less than ambient and the above steam temp. Still it seems like the insulation alone will require more space than current lines (aside from the towers). I just am wondering how much more or if I am totally wrong about it?

That is unfortunate, because much is lost in translation, to the point of anybody responding trying to imagine what the real question you are asking is.

If the technology was perfected right now, the cost would likely still be prohibitive. What I am interested in is building an automated national transit system, with part of the construction being a new power grid (see my blog npts2020.blogspot.com). The real question is how would you plan for retrofitting superconducting grid? I have little concept of how big or heavy the transmission lines (pipes) would have to be even after reading about it.

Yuri, it seems obvious to me that English is not your native tongue. I am usually pretty good at interpreting but cannot understand what you are talking about. If you could find someone to help you put your ideas and questions in coherant English or even mathematics, I think you will get better responses. Dont feel badly, though, your command of English is better than my command of any language other than English.

The Standard Model has no action at a distance. Everything is mediated by the exchange of particles. So electrons which move apart due to electromagnetism are transferring momentum by exchanging a photon, just like two ice skaters moving apart when one throws a ball at the other.

Thanks for the clarification, it really has been a long time since giving any serious thought to this. Do these exchanges in any way change mass or charge of the particles they come from while the exchange is taking place? Also, how does such a force act in every direction at the same time?

Just a simple question, if the earth is expanding why are we not (at the surface) getting closer to the sun, moon, planets, etc.?